Dr Ha-Joon Chang | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2019
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
Chang is a renowned economist, specialising in development economics. He has served as a consultant to various UN agencies, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, and Oxfam. His publications have enjoyed extensive commercial and academic success, with Kicking Away the Ladder winning the Gunnar Myrdal Prize. In 2013 Chang was listed as one of the top twenty world thinkers by Prospect magazine.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
He is one of the greatest economist alive
I love how he speaks english. He says yea the way people who speak spanish do. Feel cool to recognize these linguistic commonalities 😊
🤣🤣😂 very funny right 🤣.
@@achirakol2560 Which part is exactly funny?
What a great timing, today I've just started reading his 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. 😄
HIs book, Bad Samaritans, is one of the best books I've read.
@@BaronVonGreenback1882 oh! Didn't know about that! Will see after finishing the current one. :)
23 things and bad samaritans are good. Kicking away the ladder is also among the top three
Thanks! Sir
Goodness me. So many interesting topics discussed by Prof. Dr Ha-Joon Chang.
👇
At 49:30 --"[Mainstream] economics has become like Catholic theology in medieval Europe. It has become the language of the rulers [...]
They are not going to let you 'speak' it... unless you belong to the priesthood... or are from an extremely privileged background"
A comment regarding the situation in South Africa. One of the tragedies of the South African experience is that despite all that was unjust in the country for so long, the government had introduced enlightened thinking regarding the taxation of property. Johannesburg and some other cities exempted property improvements from the tax base and relied on land values as the basis for public revenue. This arrangement has been eroded, exposing these cities to the same credit-fueled, speculation driven land market dynamics at plague so many other cities around the globe.
VISUALLY IMPAIRED, SO I listen on audio books. Excellent!!
Students at Oxford who attended this lecture would gain significant insight into the origins of inequality and how to peacefully bring the condition to an end by reading the analysis of the 19th century Scottish writer Patrick Edward Dove. His book, "The Theory of Human Progression" shows him to be a profound thinker on the moral issues.
Your are such a great human being your are a tremendous blessing. You back up the logical ideas I have accepted my whole life. I am African American and felt respected and honored by you. I make 6 figures and work in Medicare insurance sales. I try to help all races get up to speed so they make informed decisions.
Your efforts to make the world a better place will not go unnoticed Harry. The knowledge you bestow onto others will come back to benefit you with a wicked multiplicative effect. (This may not be why you do it, but I know from myself that when you help others earnestly, they will endeavour to do the same)
@@karlkareemmelaimi5091 I am honored by your comment. Sometimes I help seniors after finding out what they have been through. I can't help but have water come out of my eyes.
I 100% agree, but I like to put a different emphasis on it, one which I think is more compelling in it's urgency: Chang says the rules are "universal, but not fair", which seems like a contradiction (if you are elite). The implication, which I think he and the elite rich would all agree is true (on average) is: *rich people are better.* It's unfair because the rich college applicants are better! I'll say it again: the applicant that had private tutors and involved parents and went to Honduras and Paris and plays the violin is actually smarter, more skilled, and a BETTER BET for a college than the one who clerked for her parents every day, a repetitive job that, as Adam Smith would say, "will make a person as dumb as a person can be" (one reason why Adam Smith was NOT pro-capitalism, by the way). As a private tutor, I know this acutely.
So THAT is what we are up against. That is why drastic, affirmative, remedial and redistributive action is necessary: not because talented poor kids are being left behind (well not just because), but because all poorer kids are literally being made unnecessarily dumber, sicker, and lesser in so many ways by their lack of access to money and education
Does anyone know the host's name?
He is very sharp 🪒... Brilliant... Tha black movement....
Equality is an inherent nature of human being. Most experimental researches concerning ultimatum games found that the actual results differ from SPN Equilibrium which predicted by strongly rational assumption.
No it's not! Its an idea, a human concept. The 'pursuit for equality' is a better phrasing to understand what you are trying to say which is also quite an empty statement.
What if you could choose what economic system you wanted to live under? Like, for instance, I'm a socialist living in America. Wealth doesn't interest me. I want to have my material needs met, I want to be "secure," but I have absolutely no interest in being a millionaire, let alone billionaire. All the time people here tell me: "If you don't like it here, go live somewhere else!" Honestly, I'd like to. I'd like if myself and my fellow American socialists could form our own independent socialist democracy. Maybe that's what doomed the Soviet Union: not every Russian agreed with the Soviet socialist system, but dissent was not tolerated, much like the dissent of socialists is not tolerated in the US. Basically, we are all forced to live under the economic system we live under. For some that's not a problem, but for some it is. People should be allowed to form societies based on common beliefs and values, not just on shared nationality, which is, of course, arbitrary.
It is the extremes, we should avoid. It was done very successfully in FDR's 4 terms. ;)
FDR !
Overton window in US has gone so far right that someone like FDR today would be considered as extreme/radical leftist.
@@MarkoKraguljac he was considered an extremist back then.. he was literally considered a class traitor.. and thank god for his treachery..
49:49 - 52:20
Welfare should just have a GDP/population assets test with deeming accommodation share regardless of ownership at 10% valuation; to pay welfare to working asset poor to enable work. Not housing required, waited for, time limited, unemployed, disabled or aged welfare; that paid asset rich loafers not to work only.
What is the problem with some getting richer, if none are getting poorer
None are getting poorer ? What are you talking about ? Do you know nothing about how neoliberal economics works ? Wages, for workers, have remained stagnant for more than 4 decades now, while the wealth of executives and shareholders has skyrocketed. The poor are struggling like hell, especially in countries like USA, India etc etc.
We can't map the world onto a postage stamp without losing details.
Oh, these legs.
i was just gonna say, 'what fine shapely legs' lol. had to rewind thrice to make sure i saw what i saw.
What makes beautiful legs? lol
Lol nice spot! Too distracting for me ;-)
Me too 😂
Nasty.
pervert
Very interesting, simple tools could get rural people to produce food ,hand plowing ,seeding tools etc. This could teach people how to think simple engineering skills,people would stop coming to city's to find jobs,staying poor.
Just a thought.
What's she wearing on such an occasion 🤣
I’m having trouble understanding him, which is weird because he is using solid English. Weird how emphasizing different words and inflections totally throw off the brain’s ability to receive information.
His native Korean doesn't value much which syllable of the word is stressed, and it also doesn't have a distinction between short and long vowels, which English does have (back / bag, attack, tag).
I adore the explanation of economic language but I was disappointed by the otherwise explicitly pro-capitalism talk. Using China under the Mao headed CCP as an example of a state with too much "bad inequality" is absurd and further comparing that to Khmer Rouge is as outrageous as it is offensive.
Gorgeous interviewer. Little man was stone hard throughout.
Justice is important. Equal financial incomes isn't.
Equality IS Justice.
@@damnedyankee946 equality of what?
@@damnedyankee946 you think everyone being paid the same amount of money is justice?
yes it is. He is not talking about everybody having the SAME income - He is talking about the range of rich to poor not being such an extreme that the rich have more than whole nations, while the poor are stuck in a spiral of poverty more and more impossible to get out of other than by pure luck. Equality is a curve, not a flat line.
@@isitsafe6166 Do not confuse "equality" with "same".
He's is jail now
I thought Oxford Union only hosted celebrities and pagans?
Why was she dressing and sitting like this?)
To distract :')
there is nothing wrong. do you not appreciate the view?
So what's the answer to why inequality matters.
Why does in matter? No a single coherent thought.
Inequality of WHAT by the way?
Inequality of Outcome is guaranteed.
I see equality of opportunity as positive.
Equality of Outcome is a fools errand.
I take it you did not listen to what he was saying?
I am reading his book on economic history at the moment. No sure I agree with his views on the causes or many of the issues of inequality. Nor that the rich just got lucky. Yes they are lucky, but only from a pool of people who are sensistive to the right kind of luck.
I don't believe he has ever stated that those who ended up rich after starting out not rich "just got lucky", as though they contributed nothing to achieve that wealth. (And yes, wherever wealth has been amassed luck has without question played a major role.) The wealthy whom he would refer to as having "just got lucky" are those who were born into wealth, as he did in this talk.
I think we should stop looking at the individuals and think of countries instead. Why are some countries filled with people with a high standard of living, and why are some filled with poor instead?
And the reason as Ha Joon Chang says is not that people are hardworking or lazy. The reason is rather that some societies are better developed than others.
The people in many 3rd world countries are hardworking and spend 10, 12 or even 16 hours working in factories. They have no freetime in the weekends. And they get no vacation. But even if they work hard people there don't get rich.
People in Scandinavian countries are lazy on the other hand. They don't work on the weekends, they have paid vacations and they also get maternity leave and such. And people in those countries are still richer than people in China, Bangladesh, and Africa.
So how hard you work doesn't matter that much. It is more important what the circumstances is in the country where you are born. Warren Buffet himself said that he didn't think that he would become rich if he had been born in a 3rd world country instead. Because then would probably have to become a farmer, and Buffet said that he isn't good at farming.
Countries in scandinavia can produce more stuff per worker than workers in poor countries because they have been roads and infrastructure, better internet, they have an electric grid without constant energy blackouts, there is no need to pay bribes to government officials or extortion money to a local maffia. There is a plenty of educated workers and "human capital". And there are lots of machinery. robots, computers and advanced tools.
So a Scandinavian worker can produce things more effiecently than a factory in a poor country can that needs to deal with all kinds of problems that a factory in Scandinavia doesn't need to spend much time caring about.
Inequality and how rich people become in rich countries are also not entirely decided by how hard working you are. You can be born in the same town as someone else and still got very different chances here in life even if you are equally smart and motivated to work hard as someone else.
If the government stops to pay for education, then that will not become a problem for kids with rich parents, but the kids that without any fault of their own wasn't born with rich parents this will become a problem. They will not get any education. And without an education it will become difficult to compete for a job with the rich kids that have an education.
So you will see untalented rich kids take more of the jobs.
And when the government stops paying for healthcare because the rich people want to "stop paying for other lazy peoples healthcare", then you will once again see a class society grow. Rich people can pay someone to fix their teeths or to take care of their old parents.
But poor people cannot afford that luxury. They have to go to work and feel pain in their mouth instead when they cannot afford to go to dentist and they maybe also need to stay home some days because they cannot do a good job with all the pain. And women needs to take care of their parents when they cannot afford to let someone else do so. And then they need to sacrifice their own free time and work less hours at their real job, so they can get the time they need to help their parents.
And the same thing goes for the kids at the kindergarden. I can certainly see that family values as a good thing, but I don't like the idea that relatives should burn themselves out trying to help others. They need to get help from the government so they can get some rest and also live their own life for a moment. It is way too common that relatives burn themselves out before they seek help to take care of their demented parent or handicapped child.
So if you are a poor woman in an unequal society where everything is privatized, then your chances of making a career and getting well paid job will be pretty small. But if you live in a rich country where the government helps you take care of your kids and your mother and father. And you don't have to fear of going bankrupth because you have to pay your doctor. Then you will have more oppurtunities in life.
You will able to take on a job with more a better wage and more responsabilities, instead of having to say no to the job offer because you need time to take care of your family.
And if you live in a country where the government will not let you die and starve on the street if you go bankrupth, then you can take some risks in your life. You can choose to take a career choice towards a job with a good salary but with a high risk of losing your job. So if things go bad and you lose your job, then you will not suffere a terrible fate.
But if you live in a poor country then the risk of dying on the streets if you lose your job is high, most people will probably take a job where the risk of losing ones job is minimal. The wage on those jobs will probably be bad, but people accept that risk. Because a low wage is better than dying.
Most people don't work to get rich. But they instead only see work as a necessary evil here in life that you have to do to be able to pay your bills and put food on the table.
@@nattygsbord Rich countries are rich mainly because their culture permitted people to think freely to solve problens. They are also rich because long term decision making. Poor counties are poor because they are corrupt, fail to invest. Property rights, risk taking and bankrupcy regulstions also were crucial to economic expansion and the development of the internal national market that results in trickle down investment.
@@alphalobster8021 The population in the rich countries are rich much because of the reasons you say.
However, national wealth is hardly to any use if it is not shared around among all the citizens in a society. If 1% of the country live like royals and the rest of the population are dirt poor then people will consider that country as poor. Many arab countries have gigantic amounts of oil money, but their populations live in poverty while the ruling elite drive luxury cars.
The most effective way of solving inequality is to give everyone a job as I sees it. The rich will hate the idea because they don't like to pay workers high wages, and unemployment makes people desperate and pushes down wages so therefore they rather have unemployment than full employment.
But for us who put the best for our country before our own greedy self-interest, we can see that this is idiotic.
Lots of people have to spend much of their day doing nothing and feel shamed for being unemployed. And since we are civilized societies we have to give them money so they do not die. And all this is just a waste of course.
So the best way to get equality is to let government policies do away with unemployment (by for example a job guarantee programme or fiscal or monetary stimulus).
And when everyone is working then your country produce more stuff and become richer. People will start paying taxes when they get a job, and no one has to live off welfare anymore. People get their pride and dignity back and feel like full-worthy citizen and a part of society.
And public health will also improve as society becomes more equal in this way. You will have less suicides and divorces caused by economic problems. Fewer depression. Less alcoholism. Fewer will feel sit home and feel sorry for themselves and eat chocolate and become overweight. And fewer people would feel shame over being fat, unemployed, depressed and miserable.. which means that they are less likely to cut themself off from society and not engage in friendships and public life and trying to influence politics.
People will feel less stress about not having to worry about their own economy so much, and they can feel like they are having control over their own life.
Government intervention to create full employment will empower people. And it will also create a meritocratic society where everyone has a chance to become something.
An equal society will also help technological innovation. Because robotization and mass production requires mass consumption. If most of your country is poor to buy things then you cannot sell much, and then it would be pointless to buy expensive machines if you are just going to produce a few examples. You do not open an entire furniture factory and buy expensive machines just to build 1 chair. You need to perhaps sell more than 1000 chairs before it will start to pay off to invest in new machinery for your factory and better tools for the workers.
A society will not develop well with much inequality, when there are many poor and rich, but no middle class at all. You will have a society like Rome with a landless proletariate that have no jobs and incomes to buy things, and a rich elite that buys almost nothing except luxuries like nice jewelry and wine. And the result is of course that all other industries stagnate when there are too few buyers to keep the Roman industries alive when the Roman farmers lost their farms after the punic war.
The pottery industry stagnated and died. And so died textiles, iron works, furniture factories and everything else.
If you are going to lift a country out of poverty you need a large consumer base for your industries. And if you cannot get enough consumers back home then you need to export to other countries that have them until you could build up a strong middle class in your own country.
And the government can also help producers and consumers to reach each other by improving the infrastructure in the country so industries can start selling goods over a larger area on the map before transportation costs starts to eat up their profits or making their goods too expensive for poor consumers.
Inequality fetish is the only way left leaning economists can stay relevant. Case in point this guy.
That and they’re more accurate. The serving of the interests of the rich and powerful is what keeps right wing economists relevant. The effectiveness of their beliefs certainly doesn’t.
Moderator's distracting skirt length is Rude. Speaker deserved a professional stage setting.
Watch Tommy Robinsons Oxford speech
Moron
I'd rather waste my time looking at a wall than listening to that idiot. Conservatives really need better people to represent them.
no